I think the difference here between Mahayana thought and Theravada thought isn't as big as it seems from some comments. Part of it I'm afraid is just some philosophical "battle for superior righteousness": pointing out that Mahayana practitioners strive to achieve Buddhahood for all beings, whereas Theravada practitioners care only about their own enlightenment, and therefore Theravada must be a selfish teaching, and inferior.

If in Theravada practitioners are solely concerned with themselves, how can there be Theravada teachers? The moment one realizes compassion, the wish to liberate all beings comes naturally.

Arjan Dirkse wrote:I think the difference here between Mahayana thought and Theravada thought isn't as big as it seems from some comments. Part of it I'm afraid is just some philosophical "battle for superior righteousness": pointing out that Mahayana practitioners strive to achieve Buddhahood for all beings, whereas Theravada practitioners care only about their own enlightenment, and therefore Theravada must be a selfish teaching, and inferior.

If in Theravada practitioners are solely concerned with themselves, how can there be Theravada teachers? The moment one realizes compassion, the wish to liberate all beings comes naturally.

On the other camp, today at a Theravada forum one vehement Theravadin claimed that "all Theravada teachnigs are focused to help you reach Enlighnment while in Tibetan Buddhism mostly everything is focused on helping others and little more than that"...

Theravadins have a very plausible and credible gripe with the Vajrayana, and are polite enough to hold their tongue mostly. I personally have nothing but respect for them. My post quoting Gompopa was simply a response trying to explain how there isn't a 'right' and 'wrong' form of enlightenment.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN

smcj wrote:Theravadins have a very plausible and credible gripe with the Vajrayana, and are polite enough to hold their tongue mostly.

The ones i have met refuse to take the effort to understand Vajrayana due to way too much predjuice and samskaras; and end up disparaging it with arguments that show not being able to have a deep understanding of it. I say this with sadness, not with anger.

Right now i'm abandoning said Theravada group i mentioned previously, exactly because of this.

If this is a virtual sangha, do we achieve virtualization instead of realization?

The ones i have met refuse to take the effort to understand Vajrayana due to way too much predjuice and samskaras; and end up disparaging it with arguments that show not being able to have a deep understanding of it. I say this with sadness, not with anger.

What they are saying, in effect, is that the Theravada path is karmically correct for them.

Right now i'm abandoning said Theravada group i mentioned previously, exactly because of this.

What you are saying, in effect, is that the Vajrayana path is karmically correct for you.

Neither is a problem.

A human being has his limits. And thus, in every conceivable way, with every possible means, he tries to make the teaching enter into his own limits. ChNN